DETAILED ACTION
Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
Double Patenting
The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg, 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman, 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi, 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum, 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel, 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington, 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969).
A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b).
The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13.
The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA /25, or PTO/AIA /26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer.
Claims 1-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12344294.
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: The patent claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The patent claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective patent claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the patent claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. v. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the patented invention" and the instant “application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the patent claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims”).
Claims 1-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-6, 10-11 and 15-20 of copending Application No. 19254080 (reference application).
Claims 1-6 and 8-20 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-3 and 15-18 of copending Application No. 19254077 and over claims 1-20 of copending Application No. 19254081 (reference applications).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because: The reference application claims include all of the limitations of the instant application claims, respectively. The reference application claims also include additional limitations. Hence, the instant application claims are generic to the species of invention covered by the respective reference application claims. As such, the instant application claims are anticipated by the reference application claims and are therefore not patentably distinct therefrom. (See Eli Lilly and Co. V. Barr Laboratories Inc., 58 USPQ2D 1869, "a later genus claim limitation is anticipated by, and therefore not patentably distinct from, an earlier species claim", In re Goodman, 29 USPQ2d 2010, "Thus, the generic invention is 'anticipated' by the species of the reference application invention" and the instant "application claims are generic to species of invention covered by the reference application claim, and since without terminal disclaimer, extant species claims preclude issuance of generic application claims").
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented.
Claims 7 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19254077 and over claim 1 of copending Application No. 19254081 in view of Mesher (US 20180237041).
Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because the claims of this application are rendered obvious by the claims of the reference applications. Reference application claims recite all limitations found in instant claims except for “wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar.”
Mesher teaches wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar (FIG. 4, FIG. 7; see [0057]-[0058]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to use Mesher's teachings to include wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar in order to provide an accurate, reliable, robust and cost-effective broken wheel detection system that is capable of identifying rolling stock wheel defects continuously at full track speed for any type of wheels with no impact to traffic flows, for all wheels in each train consist (Mesher; [0006]).
This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim(s) 1-6, 8, 10-12, 14 and 16-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschelman (US 20240137635) in view of Arcaini et al (US 10523858).
As to claim 1, Buschelman discloses an inspection portal system (FIG. 3) comprising:
an overhead inspection system comprising one or more overhead cameras and one or more overhead lights (FIG. 3, cameras 6-7 and overhead LED lights 15);
a side inspection system comprising one or more first cameras configured to capture images of a side of a railcar and one or more first lights (FIG. 3, right side cameras 5 and right side LED lights 15); and
one or more computing devices in electrical communication (FIG. 5, controller 40) with: the one or more sensors; inspection portal cameras comprising the one or more overhead cameras, the one or more first cameras, and at least one of the one or more undercarriage cameras or the one or more second cameras; and inspection portal lights comprising the one or more overhead lights, the one or more first lights, and at least one of the one or more undercarriage lights or the one or more second lights, wherein the one or more computing devices is configured to determine a capture timing for each of the inspection portal cameras based at least in part on a train speed estimation determined according to detection events detected by the one or more sensors (see [0038]).
Buschelman fails to explicitly disclose a track mounted inspection system comprising at least one of: an undercarriage inspection system comprising one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprising one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights; or one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies being attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprising one or more second cameras and one or more second lights; and
one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar.
However, Arcaini teaches a track mounted inspection system comprising at least one of: an undercarriage inspection system comprising one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprising one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights (FIGS. 1-2); or one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies being attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprising one or more second cameras and one or more second lights; and
one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar (col. 2, lines 59-64).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Buschelman using Arcaini teachings to include a track mounted inspection system comprising at least one of: an undercarriage inspection system comprising one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprising one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights; or one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies being attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprising one or more second cameras and one or more second lights; and one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar in order to allow the undercarriage of a train to be inspected periodically without the need to stop the train for a visual inspection and to determine very precise and accurate measurements of the speed of a train at a given point in time (Arcaini; col. 2, lines 35-38; col. 5, lines 11-13).
As to claim 2, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses further comprising a support structure comprising a first side, a second side, and a top portion supported by the first and second sides, the support structure configured to span across a track of the railway and to permit the railcar to pass therethrough (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 3, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein at least one of the overhead inspection system or the side inspection system is attached to the support structure (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 4, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses further comprising a weather housing comprising a first wall, a second wall, a roof, a first open end, and a second open end, wherein the weather housing covers the support structure, and is configured to permit the railcar to pass therethrough via the first open end and the second open end (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 5, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein at least some of the one or more first lights form a first array of first lights and a second array of first lights, the first array of first lights being arranged in a generally vertical orientation along at least a first portion of the first side of the support structure, and the second array of first lights being arranged in a generally vertical orientation along at least a second portion of the first side of the support structure (Buschelman; FIGS. 3-4, side lights 15 arranged in a generally vertical orientation; see FIG. 2).
As to claim 6, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein: the side inspection system is a first side inspection system (FIG. 3, right side cameras 5 and right side LED lights 15); the side of the railcar is a first side of the railcar (FIG. 3, right side); and the inspection portal system further comprises a second support structure comprising a second side inspection system configured to capture images of the first side of the railcar or a second side of the railcar, the second side inspection system comprising one or more third cameras and one or more third lights (FIG. 3, left side cameras 5 and left side LED lights 15).
As to claim 8, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein the one or more computing devices is further configured to determine the capture timing for each of the inspection portal cameras based on one or more electrical signal transmission or processing latencies (Buschelman; FIG. 5 and [0038]).
As to claim 10, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein at least some of the one or more overhead cameras, the one or more first cameras, the one or more undercarriage cameras, or the one or more second cameras are positioned, angled, and focused to capture images of one or more respective particular components of the railcar (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 11, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein at least some of the one or more overhead cameras, the one or more first cameras, the one or more undercarriage cameras, or the one or more second cameras are positioned, angled, and focused to capture images of one or more respective particular regions of the railcar (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 12, Buschelman discloses an inspection portal system (FIG. 3) comprising:
(FIG. 3), a side inspection system (FIG. 3),
the overhead inspection system comprises one or more overhead cameras and one or more overhead lights (FIG. 3, cameras 6-7 and overhead LED lights 15);
the side inspection system comprises one or more first cameras configured to capture images of a side of a railcar and one or more first lights (FIG. 3, right side cameras 5 and right-side LED lights 15); and
one or more computing devices in electrical communication (FIG. 5, controller 40) with: the one or more sensors; inspection portal cameras comprising at least three of the one or more overhead cameras, the one or more first cameras, the one or more undercarriage cameras, or the one or more second cameras; and inspection portal lights comprising at least three of the one or more overhead lights, the one or more first lights, the one or more undercarriage lights, or the one or more second lights, wherein the one or more computing devices is configured to determine a capture timing for each of the inspection portal cameras based at least in part on a train speed estimation determined according to detection events detected by the one or more sensors (see [0038]).
Buschelman fails to explicitly disclose an undercarriage inspection system, or a tie-mounted inspection system, wherein: the undercarriage inspection system comprises one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, and each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprises one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights; and the tie-mounted inspection system comprises one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, and each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies is attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprises one or more second cameras and one or more second lights; and
one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar.
However, Arcaini teaches an undercarriage inspection system, wherein: the undercarriage inspection system comprises one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, and each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprises one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights (FIGS. 1-2); and
one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar (col. 2, lines 59-64).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify Buschelman using Arcaini teachings to include an undercarriage inspection system, wherein: the undercarriage inspection system comprises one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies located between rails of a railway, and each of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies comprises one or more undercarriage cameras and one or more undercarriage lights; and one or more sensors configured to detect a presence or an absence of the railcar in order to allow the undercarriage of a train to be inspected periodically without the need to stop the train for a visual inspection and to determine very precise and accurate measurements of the speed of a train at a given point in time (Arcaini; col. 2, lines 35-38; col. 5, lines 11-13).
As to claim 14, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein: the side inspection system is a first side inspection system (FIG. 3, right side cameras 5 and right side LED lights 15); the side of the railcar is a first side of the railcar (FIG. 3, right side); the inspection portal system further comprises a second side inspection system comprising one or more third cameras configured to capture images of a second side of the railcar and one or more third lights; the inspection portal cameras further comprise the one or more third cameras; and the inspection portal lights further comprise the one or more third lights (FIG. 3, left side cameras 5 and left side LED lights 15);.
As to claim 16, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses further comprising a support structure comprising a first side, a second side, and a top portion supported by the first and second sides, the support structure configured to span across a track of a railway and to permit the railcar to pass therethrough (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 17, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein at least one of the overhead inspection system or the side inspection system is attached to the support structure (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 18, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses further comprising a weather housing comprising a first wall, a second wall, a roof, a first open end, and a second open end, wherein the weather housing covers the support structure, and is configured to permit the railcar to pass therethrough via the first open end and the second open end (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
As to claim 19, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses wherein the one or more computing devices is further configured to determine the capture timing for each of the inspection portal cameras based on one or more electrical signal transmission or processing latencies (Buschelman; FIG. 5 and [0038]).
Claim(s) 7 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschelman (US 20240137635) in view of Arcaini et al (US 10523858) in view of Mesher (US 20180237041).
As to claim 7, the combination of Buschelman, Arcaini fails to explicitly discloses wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar.
However, Mesher teaches wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar (FIG. 4, FIG. 7; see [0057]-[0058]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini using Mesher's teachings to include wherein the second side inspection system is configured to capture images of a brake and/or shoe region of the railcar in order to provide an accurate, reliable, robust and cost-effective broken wheel detection system that is capable of identifying rolling stock wheel defects continuously at full track speed for any type of wheels with no impact to traffic flows, for all wheels in each train consist (Mesher; [0006]).
Claim(s) 9 and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschelman (US 20240137635) in view of Arcaini et al (US 10523858) in view of Kohler et al (US 10984521).
As to claims 9 and 20, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini fails to explicitly disclose further comprising a compressed air source, wherein at least one of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies or the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies comprises an air curtain configured to blow air across an optical end of the one or more undercarriage cameras or the one or more second cameras.
However, Kohler teaches further comprising a compressed air source, wherein at least one of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies or the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies comprises an air curtain configured to blow air across an optical end of the one or more undercarriage cameras or the one or more second cameras (FIG. 1, HVAC system 180; see col. 15, lines 20-45).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini using Kohler's teachings to include a compressed air source, wherein at least one of the one or more undercarriage inspection assemblies or the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies comprises an air curtain configured to blow air across an optical end of the one or more undercarriage cameras or the one or more second cameras in order to regulate environmental conditions, ensure that operating requirements of modules are satisfied, and ensure a tempered environment for modules to operate during hot weather (Kohler; col. 15, lines 20-30).
Claim(s) 13 and 15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Buschelman (US 20240137635) in view of Arcaini et al (US 10523858) in view of Mian et al (US 20200408682).
As to claim 13, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses comprising the overhead inspection system, the side inspection system, the undercarriage inspection system, (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
The combination of Buschelman and Arcaini fails to explicitly disclose comprising the tie-mounted inspection system.
However, Mian teaches comprising the tie-mounted inspection system, the tie-mounted inspection system comprises one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, and each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies is attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprises one or more second cameras and one or more second lights (FIG. 5 and [0038]-[0039]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini using Mian's teachings to include the tie-mounted inspection system, the tie-mounted inspection system comprises one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, and each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies is attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprises one or more second cameras and one or more second lights in order to accurately measure one or more wheel attributes (Mian;
[0005]).
As to claim 15, the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini further discloses comprising the overhead inspection system, the first side inspection system, the second side inspection system, (Buschelman; FIG. 3).
The combination of Buschelman and Arcaini fails to explicitly disclose comprising the tie-mounted inspection system.
However, Mian teaches comprising the tie-mounted inspection system, the tie-mounted inspection system comprises one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, and each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies is attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprises one or more second cameras and one or more second lights (FIG. 5 and [0038]-[0039]).
At the time before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, it would have been
obvious to one of ordinary skills in the art to modify the combination of Buschelman and Arcaini using Mian's teachings to include the tie-mounted inspection system, the tie-mounted inspection system comprises one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies, and each of the one or more tie-mounted inspection assemblies is attached to one or more ties of the railway at a location outside the rails of the railway and comprises one or more second cameras and one or more second lights in order to accurately measure one or more wheel attributes (Mian;
[0005]).
Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU whose telephone number is (571)272-7625. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 8am-4pm.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Chris Kelley can be reached at 5712727331. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/BOUBACAR ABDOU TCHOUSSOU/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2482
Prosecution Insights